Face detection in normal and prosopagnosic individuals.

Face detection, the process of finding a face in a visual scene, is a critical step in face processing, yet it has received relatively little attention compared with other face processes. The present study addresses this crucial first stage by investigating the effect of inversion on face detection and by examining how individuals with developmental prosopagnosia perform on face detection tasks. Fourteen control participants and fourteen individuals with developmental prosopagnosia (DPs) were tested with two face detection tasks: (I) Face versus Non-Face, where arrays of small images were presented, one of which could contain a face and (2) Face versus Face Parts, where a two-tone face could be embedded in a larger array of similar two-tone face parts. On each trial, participants made a speeded response if a face was present in the visual display. On almost all measures both normal and prosopagnosic individuals showed strong inversion effects with significantly worse performance with inverted faces. This shows that the simple task of detection can show inversion effects comparable to those seen for other face tasks, including recognition. Finally, while there were prosopagnosics who were well within the normal range for detection, there were significant group differences, particularly for the case of the Face versus Face Parts, where prosopagnosics were worse than controls on upright but not on inverted face detection.

[1]  R. Yin.  Looking at Upside-down Faces , 1969 .

[2]  P. Feyereisen,et al.  A case of prosopagnosia with some preserved covert remembrance of familiar faces , 1983, Brain and Cognition.

[3]  A. Young,et al.  Understanding face recognition. , 1986, British journal of psychology.

[4]  Dean G. Purcell,et al.  The face-detection effect , 1986 .

[5]  S. Carey,et al.  Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[6]  D. Purcell,et al.  The face-detection effect: Configuration enhances detection , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  N. Macmillan,et al.  Response bias : characteristics of detection theory, threshold theory, and nonparametric indexes , 1990 .

[8]  M. Farah,et al.  What causes the face inversion effect? , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  B. Renault,et al.  Face and shape repetition effects in humans: a spatio‐temporal ERP study , 1997, Neuroreport.

[10]  K. Nakayama,et al.  The effect of face inversion on the human fusiform face area , 1998, Cognition.

[11]  D. C. Howell,et al.  Comparing an Individual's Test Score Against Norms Derived from Small Samples , 1998 .

[12]  M. Tarr,et al.  Can Face Recognition Really be Dissociated from Object Recognition? , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[13]  Peter J. B. Hancock,et al.  From Pixels to People: A Model of Familiar Face Recognition , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  M Moscovitch,et al.  SUPER FACE-INVERSION EFFECTS FOR ISOLATED INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL FEATURES, AND FOR FRACTURED FACES , 2000, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[15]  J. Haxby,et al.  The distributed human neural system for face perception , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[16]  A. Freire,et al.  The Face-Inversion Effect as a Deficit in the Encoding of Configural Information: Direct Evidence , 2000, Perception.

[17]  B. de Gelder,et al.  Configural face processes in acquired and developmental prosopagnosia: evidence for two separate face systems? , 2000, Neuroreport.

[18]  Narendra Ahuja,et al.  Detecting Faces in Images: A Survey , 2002, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[19]  M. Seghier,et al.  A network of occipito-temporal face-sensitive areas besides the right middle fusiform gyrus is necessary for normal face processing. , 2003, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[20]  G. Rousselet,et al.  Is it an animal? Is it a human face? Fast processing in upright and inverted natural scenes. , 2003, Journal of vision.

[21]  Michael B. Lewis,et al.  Face Detection: Mapping Human Performance , 2003, Perception.

[22]  Hadyn D. Ellis,et al.  How we detect a face: A survey of psychological evidence , 2003, Int. J. Imaging Syst. Technol..

[23]  B. Duchaine,et al.  Dissociations of Visual Recognition in a Developmental Agnosic: Evidence for Separate Developmental Processes , 2003, Neurocase.

[24]  Irene Daum,et al.  Developmental Prosopagnosia: A Review , 2003, Behavioural neurology.

[25]  Denis Schluppeck,et al.  Neural responses to Mooney images reveal a modular representation of faces in human visual cortex , 2004, NeuroImage.

[26]  M. Riesenhuber,et al.  Face processing in humans is compatible with a simple shape–based model of vision , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[27]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Face perception: domain specific, not process specific. , 2004, Neuron.

[28]  Paul A. Viola,et al.  Robust Real-Time Face Detection , 2001, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[29]  Michael B. Lewis,et al.  Searching for faces in scrambled scenes , 2005 .

[30]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Normal and abnormal face selectivity of the M170 response in developmental prosopagnosics , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[31]  Shaul Hochstein,et al.  At first sight: A high-level pop out effect for faces , 2005, Vision Research.

[32]  Brad Duchaine,et al.  Dissociations of Face and Object Recognition in Developmental Prosopagnosia , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[33]  J. Stekelenburg,et al.  Naso-temporal asymmetry of the N170 for processing faces in normal viewers but not in developmental prosopagnosia , 2005, Neuroscience Letters.

[34]  Mark H. Johnson.  Subcortical face processing , 2005, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[35]  B. Renault,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of facial decision: insights from upright and upside-down Mooney-face perception. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[36]  Catherine J. Mondloch,et al.  What aspects of face processing are impaired in developmental prosopagnosia? , 2006, Brain and Cognition.

[37]  K. Nakayama,et al.  The Cambridge Face Memory Test: Results for neurologically intact individuals and an investigation of its validity using inverted face stimuli and prosopagnosic participants , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[38]  R. VanRullen.  On second glance: Still no high-level pop-out effect for faces , 2006, Vision Research.

[39]  R. Goebel,et al.  Cerebral Cortex doi:10.1093/cercor/bhj005 Impaired Face Discrimination in Acquired Prosopagnosia Is Associated with Abnormal Response to Individual Faces in the Right Middle Fusiform Gyrus , 2005 .

[40]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Prosopagnosia as an impairment to face-specific mechanisms: Elimination of the alternative hypotheses in a developmental case , 2006, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[41]  R. Kiani,et al.  Microstimulation of inferotemporal cortex influences face categorization , 2006, Nature.

[42]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  No global processing deficit in the Navon task in 14 developmental prosopagnosics. , 2007, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[43]  M. Kenward,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 2007 .

[44]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces? , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[45]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Please Scroll down for Article Cognitive Neuropsychology Family Resemblance: Ten Family Members with Prosopagnosia and Within-class Object Agnosia , 2022 .

[46]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Attentional and oculomotor inhibition , 2010 .

[47]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  BORB: Birmingham Object Recognition Battery , 2017 .